Wesley v. Hobbs, 2014 Ark. 260

In 2013, Eugene Wesley (pro se, incarcerated) filed a petition under Ark. Code Ann. § 16-90-111 in Lee County Circuit Court seeking to vacate his 1993 Nevada County convictions for aggravated robbery, kidnapping, and theft.
The Lee County circuit court denied the petition; Wesley appealed pro se to the Arkansas Supreme Court and moved for leave to file a belated reply brief.
The Arkansas Supreme Court determined Wesley filed in the wrong trial court: relief under § 16-90-111 must be sought in the trial court that entered the challenged judgment (Nevada County), not any circuit court.
The Lee County court treated Wesley’s filing as an untimely Rule 37.1 postconviction petition, but Rule 37.1 petitions likewise must be filed in the trial court where the judgment was entered.
Because the Lee County court lacked jurisdiction to grant relief, the appeal could not proceed and was dismissed; the motion for reconsideration/belated reply brief was moot.

Issue	Wesley's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether § 16-90-111 petition filed in a different county trial court is proper	Wesley filed in Lee County and sought relief there	Relief must be sought in the trial court that entered the judgment (Nevada County)	Petition filed in Lee County was improper; Lee County lacked jurisdiction; appeal dismissed
Whether an illegal-sentence claim can be raised in any court at any time	Wesley asserted the sentence was illegal and thus challengeable	State: jurisdictional rule requires filing in the trial court of conviction even for subject-matter jurisdiction claims	Court: Illegal-sentence claims implicate subject-matter jurisdiction but must be addressed by the trial court that entered the judgment
Whether Lee County’s treatment of the petition as an untimely Rule 37.1 filing cures venue/jurisdiction defects	Wesley implicitly relied on relief under Rule 37.1 by content	State: Rule 37.1 also requires filing in the trial court where judgment was entered	Court: Even if construed as Rule 37.1, petition still had to be filed in Nevada County; Lee County lacked authority
Whether the appeal could proceed despite the procedural/venue defect	Wesley sought leave to file a belated reply and continuation of appeal	State: appeal should not proceed because appellant cannot prevail due to jurisdictional defect	Court: Appeal dismissed as appellant could not succeed; motion moot

Stanley v. State, 2013 Ark. 483 (per curiam) (appeal from denial of postconviction relief not permitted where appellant cannot succeed)
Gilliland v. State, 2014 Ark. 149 (per curiam) (§ 16-90-111 relief must be sought in the trial court that entered the conviction)
Hill v. State, 2013 Ark. 291 (per curiam) (illegal-sentence claim is jurisdictional and must be addressed by the trial court)
Hodges v. State, 2013 Ark. 299 (per curiam) (reiterating requirement that relief be sought in the trial court of conviction)
Morgan v. State, 2012 Ark. 227 (per curiam) (Rule 37.1 petitions must be filed in the trial court where the judgment was entered)
Slocum v. State, 2014 Ark. 178 (per curiam) (where a circuit court lacks jurisdiction, the appellate court likewise lacks jurisdiction)